Why Australia’s community organisations need a new governance model

Traditionally, community organisations have been run by volunteer committees. This model reflects strong civic values and a long tradition of generosity, but today, volunteer governance is increasingly under strain, and in many cases, no longer sustainable.

Community organisations sit within Australia’s not-for-profit (NFP) sector, often referred to as the “third sector.” Collectively, the sector contributes close to five per cent of Australia’s gross value added (GVA), a standard measure of economic contribution, and manages an estimated $100 billion in government funding each year, according to the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) and the Department of Social Services. Despite this scale, the leadership and governance of many organisations is still expected to be carried out almost entirely by unpaid volunteers.

This creates a fundamental policy problem: government funds services, but not the governance systems required to deliver those services safely, effectively and accountably.

Bearing the compliance burden

Volunteer office bearers – presidents, treasurers, secretaries and vice-presidents – are now routinely responsible for compliance with complex regulatory frameworks, financial oversight, risk management, child safety obligations, grant reporting, insurance, HR matters and public representation. These are not occasional tasks. Many office bearers, myself included, report spending between seven and 20 hours per week on governance responsibilities, often on top of paid work and family commitments.

In many organisations, especially smaller ones, there are no paid staff at all. The entire burden of governance and day-to-day management falls on a volunteer committee or one or two capable volunteers. Board meetings may be democratic and well-meaning, but the real work happens outside the meeting room: drafting policies, liaising with stakeholders, external business partners, funders and regulators, writing grant applications, managing disputes and keeping the organisation afloat.

While volunteering can be deeply rewarding, it is not a sustainable model for effective governance. Burnout is widespread. Attrition is high. Fewer people are willing, or able, to take on senior governance roles. Formal volunteering has declined since the pandemic, as compliance obligations have increased, as shown in data from Volunteering Australia.

Applying a gender lens to volunteering

Some have rightly described this situation as a form of modern-day exploitation: a system in which highly skilled volunteers, predominantly women, are expected to provide sustained, high-risk professional labour without pay, recognition or structural support. This dynamic does nothing to address gender inequality and actively discourages capable leaders from remaining in the sector.

Defenders of the status quo often argue that this is the nature of volunteering. But this argument fails to distinguish between casual, short-term volunteering and governance roles that carry statutory, fiduciary and legal responsibilities under frameworks such as Victoria’s Associations Incorporation Reform Act. A volunteer who helps at an event can step back when life becomes busy. A committee president or treasurer cannot.

Nor is this simply an internal sector issue. When governance fails, the consequences are public. Poor decision-making, financial mismanagement and compliance breaches undermine service quality, erode trust and waste taxpayer funds. Multiple government-commissioned reviews, including the recent Not-for-Profit Sector Development Blueprint, have warned that the sector is too important to be left without strategic investment in its foundations.

The solution is not to abandon community governance, but to modernise it.

A more sustainable way forward

A more sustainable approach would introduce a hybrid governance model that preserves community participation while recognising the realities of contemporary organisational leadership. This could include targeted government grants to provide modest stipends for high-responsibility office bearer roles; professionalised recruitment processes based on skills and experience; and subsidised governance training in finance, compliance and risk management.

Smaller organisations could be supported through shared governance services, such as access to bookkeepers, governance officers or grant-writing support, funded by government or local councils. Tiered compliance requirements could ensure reporting obligations are proportionate to organisational size and risk. Digital tools could reduce administrative burden. Stronger partnerships with councils and peak bodies could support succession planning and leadership development.

These are not radical ideas. They are pragmatic reforms that recognise a simple truth: good governance is not free. If governments expect accountability, transparency and value for money, they must invest not only in what community organisations do, but in how they are led.

Australia’s community organisations are too important to be run on goodwill alone. Supporting the people who carry the responsibility of leadership is not a threat to community values. It is essential to protecting them.

More information

The full, academic version of this feature is also available to read here.

About the author: Dr Oksana King

Originally a teacher, university lecturer, teacher trainer and academic, King transitioned into community and education leadership about a decade ago. She currently serves as vice president of Community Languages Victoria and holds governance roles in two other community organisations, driven by a strong commitment to helping communities achieve their goals through effective leadership. Oksana advises boards and government bodies on governance, community capacity building, strategic planning, and sustainable service delivery. She also contributes to public and professional conversations on education, migration and community governance through panel discussions, interviews and publications.